First of all, I think people should look at the subject of the potential historical accuracy of the new testament in an unbias way. Bias plays a huge role in such investigations (Christians will approach it from the perspective of "it is true and i'm just confirming it", and some atheists will approach it from the perspective of "I know it's impossible, I just wanna bolster that impossibility through historical data"). So I think most would agree that it isn't a good idea to go into an investigation of the historical accuracy of the new testament from the standpoint of "proving" it to be accurate or innacurate, but rather from the standpoint of investingating HISTORICALLY what it says, and determining if it is an unbias historical text, and not a collection of myths handed down, hearsay, and blatent lies.

Another bias that I think should be eliminated in such an investigation is the immediate notion that miracles are impossible. Such a notion is based on an argument by Hume that belief can be justified by probability and that probability is based upon the uniformity or consistency of nature. Anything that is unique must be rejected. This is a very scientific way of looking at things, and it works most of the time. However, I don't think that it works in an investigation of the historical accuracy of the new testament, because science tells us what has happened, not what may or may not happen. As a historian, you should be open to whatever witnesses and all other available evidence supports, and not bent on predetermined notions of what can and cannot happen.

Taking that into account, what is your historical reasoning for or against the historical accuracy of the new testament?

edit: Also a pre-emptive notice, this isn't the place for rollie eyes and example arguments (i.e. if i told you i was resurrected, would you believe me?). This is a thread about historical facts, and enterpreting historical evidence.

another edit: Try to keep with the thread's topic. It's really easy in religion topics to stray far away, keep this one about the historical accuracy or innacuraccy of the new testament, and also try to post reasons, since we all know a lot of people here don't think it is accurate, I'm asking why.

"Historical Accuracy of the New Testement"

Very little.

If you want to make a strictly historical analysisis of the new testament, should not you have posted this in the history forum?

Accuracy is high, but you have to consider that it was written some time after events so to have errors is not unexpected.

Plus the fact that it wasn't written so to be read as a historical document. It's on about the religious significance of a historical person, which is a bit more than just an essay for a history class. ;)

Originally posted by stormbind
Accuracy is high, but you have to consider that it was written some time after events so to have errors is not unexpected.

How long after the events do you believe it was written?

About 60 to 90 years, from what I've read.

That's what I've heard too Pilate. Some believe it was written as much as 200 years after the events, but those estimates are most definitly incorrect from what I know. However, 60-90 years between the events of Christ's life and their recording is not sufficient to affect their accuracy. Such a period is considered too small to permit any appreciable corruption of even the specific wordings of Jesus according to the "ancient document" principle under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Originally posted by Giotto
However, 60-90 years between the events of Christ's life and their recording is not sufficient to affect their accuracy.

It is because people looking to disprove the bible highlight tiny things like the object A being to the left of object B.

After 60-90 years it's quite easy to get details wrong. I know this because I can forget a street plan after being away from a town for only 5 years ;)

You don't realise the memory is flawed until you go back and take wrong turn :p

I think you misunderstood that principle Giotto. From everything I've been given to understand, the ancient document principle is the set of laws which allow you to use a document as proof even if you can't have anyone testify "Yeah, this is the official document" because the people who signed it are dead.

(Side note : usually, when you want to present, say, a contract in court, you have to have a witness testify that it is a legitimately kept contract. IE "Yes, I am the attorney who took care of this case. Yes, this is the contract both parties signed.". Obviously this isn't possible for documents several years old, so there is a law allowing certain ancient documents to be presented as proof if certain conditions are met).

While it might say something like "A document written 60 years before the trial should not be considered corrupted", it certainly won't say "a document written 60 years after the event it propose to describe should be considered accurate."

Originally posted by stormbind
It is because people looking to disprove the bible highlight tiny things like the object A being to the left of object B.

After 60-90 years it's quite easy to get details wrong. I know this because I can forget a street plan after being away from a town for only 5 years ;)

You don't realise the memory is flawed until you go back and take wrong turn :p

I certainly agree that it's quite easy to get the details wrong after 60-90 years. However, in light of the many things that have been proven right through archaeology or other means, how can we assume that everything else is wrong? Doesn't it make sense that if enough of someone's testimony is proven to be correct you can tentativly assume that it is mostly if not all correct?

Take for instance, Luke. Many biblical critics tried to prove that Luke had many errors in his writing. Every time they tried to prove this, though, they were shown eventually to be wrong. Luke was considered incorrect for referring to Phillipian rulers as praetors. Scholars thought that two duumuirs would have ruled the town. However, Luke was later shown to be correct. Findings have shown that the title of praetor was employed by the magistrates of a Roman colony. Luke is shown to be a perfectly reliable historian in all aspects, except we automatically discount anything of a miraculous nature that he describes. Why? Is it because we enter into the investigation with a predetermined prejudice that miracles simply can't happen?

There are two reasons to disbelieve what Luke says.

First is that an extaordinary claim requires equal evidence. If you claim "I hate an ham sandwich today", most people will believe you - it is not something uncommon. After all, most westerners eat ham sandwich once in a while, so there's no reason to assume you didn't.

If you claim "I was in the WTC on 9/11", that's not as easy to believe. Not that many people were in (and got out), so you'd have to present other evidence than a simple witness, perhaps a list of people who were there or something.

If you claim "I invented a time machine!", then your claim won't be sufficent - you'll be asked to prove it, to have witnesses to support your claims, probably to demonstrate that you have a time machine and it works by sending neutral observers in the past so that we can have neutral witnesses who can say that, in fact, you did invent something which appears to be a time machine, and which did appear to send them back in the past. You'll probably also be required to explain in depth the sequence of events of how it works.

Now, "Jésus came back from the dead" (or such) is a claim of the last type. Therefore, unless extraordinary proof (at the VERY least a neutral confirmation the event - which none of the gospel writers are - neutral, that is) is provided (bearing in mind that alleged miracle-workers of the sorty were very common and very believed back in these days - people went along with their claims just fine).

The second reason to disbelieve Luke is that from all evidence available, Luke wrote what he was told of Jésus' tale by others - (if indeed Luke wrote this) - therefore meaning his entire gospel is hearsay when it comes to the specific of Jésus' life, weakening its credibility.

The gospel can still be very accurate on certain points, such as the duumvir you pointed above - Luke was a man of that time, he would likely know what roman rulers adopted for titles, so it's not hearsay (he may be mistaken, but he's not proceeding by hearsay). But when it come to Jesus' life...

The hearsay rule is especially true when it comes to the resurection. We have (if it wasn't luke who wrote the gospel) a man being told that the tradition in the christian community supposedly passed dowy by luke was that Luke was told by the apostles that they were told by the women that the tomb was empty. Even if it was Luke, it's still Luke being told by the apostles who were told by the women...(etc).

If I'm not mistaken, the Bible was written 20-30 years after the events took place. At least the Book of Jonh, who was dead 60-90 years after the events and thus could not have written it in that time.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
About 60 to 90 years, from what I've read.

Incorrect, you're mixing up year written with years after.

Jesus died around 33 AD, t hey were written about 60 AD to 90 AD. So, 30 to 60 years after his death.

Meaning that, while the original Apostles probably didn't write them, their disciples did.

EDIT: And, if the theory that the synoptics all came from an original source is true, then this original source was probably written even earlier, around 40-60.

EDIT: Things you can assume are true in the New Testament:

Jesus existed.
Jesus' teachings are probably accurate.
Jesus worked miracles, or at least things people thought were miracles. Either way he did stuff that amazed some people. Some things to remember: Josephus, the Jewish historian, called him a "wonder-worker" and the Pharisees did not deny that Jesus worked miracles (which you think they would, considering they denied everything else he said) they just credited them to the power of the devil.
Jesus was crucified.
Jesus' body disappeared.

Well, there are much older writings... like the hypothetical Q document. (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96dec/jesus/jesus.htm)

"Jesus existed." - Granted.

"Jesus' teachings are probably accurate." - Not granted. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the teachings are accurately represented, and given the fact that we're looking in a wide number of years between fact and writing, especially as there are some startling contradiction (ie very pacifist statements vs very warlike statements - "I am here to set brother against brother..." and forth).

"Jesus worked miracles, or at least things people thought were miracles." - Definitely not granted. Jesus was credited with miracles is probably the most accurate ; but hundreds if not thousands of people were credited with miracles, and again we have no sources attributing miracles to Jesus before 30 years or so past his death (Josephus wrote around the same time as the gospel writers, after all).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ; there is no such proof of miracle-working by Jesus.

"Either way he did stuff that amazed some people."

Remember that this was a time where barely 10% of the population knew even how to read. A *lot* of thing would be amazing to them back in those days.

"the Pharisees did not deny that Jesus worked miracles (which you think they would, considering they denied everything else he said) they just credited them to the power of the devil."

-What evidence have we of that? The New Testament. The New Testament cannot corroborate itself.

"Jesus was crucified."

-Granted.

"Jesus' body disappeared."

Very much unproven. Remember, we only have the words of Disciple X who heard it from Apostle Y who heard it from the women that the body had disappeared. - that's a lot of hearsay, a lot of layers where *someone* could have mangled up the story, a lot of possible distortion, etc.

With bringing persons back to life, one scientist claimed there's a native plant that when consumed puts people into deep sleep - and with this they can the mistaken for dead.

I don't know how true it is, but if it's accurate then it could been used to create two of the miracles.

Ofcourse, I see the contents of this post to be a test of faith and non-believers will see me as being stubborn but cgannon64's thread on lies prompts me to disclose it all the same.

On the flip side, those anti-christians who said the two affected miracles are scientifically impossible find themselves having to admit being wrong... which they won't do... because I'm stubborn! :hmm:

Ah, see - that's a possibility, the native plant (I heard that theory too). But in that case, we are no longer dealing with miracles, but with an outright scam (if dealing with Jesus bringing back the dead ; for Jesus' own return of course it's another matter - could be a simple attempt at survival).

Were I a debout christian, I'd much rather have the gospel miracles proven to be figurative or late additions by the disciples than evidenced as forgery and deliberate falsehood by the very founder of christianty.

"Jesus' teachings are probably accurate." - Not granted. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the teachings are accurately represented, and given the fact that we're looking in a wide number of years between fact and writing, especially as there are some startling contradiction (ie very pacifist statements vs very warlike statements - "I am here to set brother against brother..." and forth).

Those contradictions are usually the result of misinterpretation. Brother against Brother is referring to the fact that he will be divisive, especially among Jews. Anyway, why would the Christians change the teachings in a matter of 30 years? If they disagreed with Jesus enough to change his teachings, they wouldn't be followers of Jesus.

"Jesus worked miracles, or at least things people thought were miracles." - Definitely not granted. Jesus was credited with miracles is probably the most accurate ; but hundreds if not thousands of people were credited with miracles, and again we have no sources attributing miracles to Jesus before 30 years or so past his death (Josephus wrote around the same time as the gospel writers, after all).

You must have missed the second part of my sentence. Jesus certainly did things that people thought were miracles. There are many, many miracle stories, so he clearly had a reputation for doing them.

Remember that this was a time where barely 10% of the population knew even how to read. A *lot* of thing would be amazing to them back in those days.

Are you calling the majority of the popluation stupid? Anyway, not being able to read has nothign to do with being amazed by someone walking on water or reviving the dead. Jesus did things that were unexplainable to the people at the time.

What evidence have we of that? The New Testament. The New Testament cannot corroborate itself.

I don't think the New Testament would invent such a vague piece of evidence. That piece of evidence certainly isn't one to prove Jesus' miracles were real, its just somethign to think about.

Very much unproven. Remember, we only have the words of Disciple X who heard it from Apostle Y who heard it from the women that the body had disappeared. - that's a lot of hearsay, a lot of layers where *someone* could have mangled up the story, a lot of possible distortion, etc.

If the body was in the tomb someone would have dug it up and pointed it out to disprove all the rumors.

Anyway, the miracles are really of secondary importance, to me at least.

No argument from me on the last.

In fact, the entire historicalo/bibliographical aspect of the NT is very secondary as far as I'm concerned - Jesus of Nazareth could have been a fictional figure invented to represent metaphorical concept for all I care. It's the basic underlying philosophy he expresses which really matters to me. IE, "Love thy neighbor".

Tomb-wise, I do believe opening the tomb to check if the body was still there would have been a deadly offense as per the then law. Even if that was not the case, remember one thing - all we have as evidence that people even *claimed* the tomb was empty in the early years of christianty is the gospels themselves.

My comment on the level of literacy back in these days was perfectly relevant to illustrate the point that we are talking about an *uneducated* population. Even something we take for granted like checking for pulse to see if someone was dead was not a well-known notion at all back in these days. "Resurections" become a lot easier to explain when people have only very uncertain means of checking for death - such as superificial visual examination. Which is the point I was making.

Pharisees-wise, there are more explanations than them just making it up. It *could* be that the accusations of devil-craft began surfacing later (ie, that the christians of the time when the gospels were written were faced with those) and that they transfered them back to put them in the mouth of Jesus' enemies. It *could* be real accusations, which would prove nothing (after all, the church itself was quick on jumping on the witchcraft bandwagon). And it could be as I said simply that the writers of the NT realized that if Jesus performed alleged miracles in their text, then they would have to give an appropriate explanation why Jesus' enemies did not concede "Oh ****, sorry man, you're really the messiah.".

I've heard about the hearsay arguement, Oba... this is how some try to refute it (I'd be interested in your input on the matter)

Matthew, the gospel writer, says the first people to hear of the resurrection were the two women. They were told of the event by an angel. If the two women reported the words of the angel in order to prove Christ had risen, it would fall under the realm of hearsay. However that is not the case. The hearsay problem would be solved because of Jesus' personal appearance to the women, because they thus gained firsthand knowledge that Christ had been raised from the dead. They had not actually witnessed the resurrection, but having seen the result sufficiently justified their conclusion that the resurrection had occured.

This does not solve the problem at all. The evidence the *apostles* had (or didn't) is *not* the question here.

We are dealing with hearsay here because *MATHEW* (or the other gospel writers), who are the one reporting the event to us, did not have firsthand knowledge of the events.

Of course, that's under the judicial argument - when trying to bring into play things such as the rule of ancient documents (as was done here), you are essentialy making the entire debate a judicial matter, at which point much of the bible has to be knocked down due to being hearsay.

Historically, hearsay is often all that we have until archaeological evidence begins to show up. So we proceed under the notion - mentioned earlier - that an extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence - the more "reasonable" a claim is (ie, fitting within the bounds of what we would expect), the more likely it is that hearsay will be enough to make that claim generally accepted.

Resurection and such are extraordinary claims, and as such require extraordinary proof. Hearsay evidence from a book whose very authorship and date of writing remain contested is not sufficient, simple as that.

The only part of the new testament that we actually know the authorship were some of those epistles of the apostle Paul. Paul was by his own writing active in the Christian community some time after the early church was established - conservatively 10-15 years... his letters, would have followed say 5-10 years after that. At the very least, the earliest epistle (Thessalonians?) would have been written 20 years after Christ's death. The earliest gospel, most likely Mark (due to Marcian material being present in both Matthew and Luke), was probably not written until around 70 AD, 40 years after Christ. The Last gospel, John, was written around the turn of the century (70 years after Christ) with the last 'epistles' (Timothy and Titus?) possibly around 110 (thus not Pauline at all).

The thing to notice with gospels is that they are written AS gospels, not history or biography. They make a theological point about the teachings and events of Christ's life, as per the author's views, rather than representing a particular historical reality - although history does emerge in the gospel narratives.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
This does not solve the problem at all. The evidence the *apostles* had (or didn't) is *not* the question here.

We are dealing with hearsay here because *MATHEW* (or the other gospel writers), who are the one reporting the event to us, did not have firsthand knowledge of the events.

Of course, that's under the judicial argument - when trying to bring into play things such as the rule of ancient documents (as was done here), you are essentialy making the entire debate a judicial matter, at which point much of the bible has to be knocked down due to being hearsay.

Historically, hearsay is often all that we have until archaeological evidence begins to show up. So we proceed under the notion - mentioned earlier - that an extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence - the more "reasonable" a claim is (ie, fitting within the bounds of what we would expect), the more likely it is that hearsay will be enough to make that claim generally accepted.

Resurection and such are extraordinary claims, and as such require extraordinary proof. Hearsay evidence from a book whose very authorship and date of writing remain contested is not sufficient, simple as that.

Everything you said makes perfect sense... I think it's just a difference of viewpoint on how exactly to view the gospels. One could possibly argue that the gospel writers were essentially themselves the judges or historians and since nobody they gathered their evidence from violated the rules of hearsay, what they wrote is accurate. Wouldn't the gospel if it was itself enterpreted as a document about history be accurate, and not hearsay? If it were viewed as hearsay, then wouldn't every historical study be hearsay? It's like if I today wrote a study on the assasination of Abraham Lincoln. Would what I say be hearsay and thus discounted?

That's pretty much what I said about history and hearsay later - generally, on the historical level we're forced to give hearsay some consideration. However, we have to qualify that hearsay depending on how wild the claim is.

If it's a claim that fits what can logically be expected, then hearsay might as well be accepted ("There was a man named Jésus, and he preached his philosophy." That's not extraordinary, preachers were no stranger to the world at that point.

If it's a claim that might be difficult to accept, then hearsay might not suffice. IE, Author X telling us that his friend Y heard from witness Z that someone survived being crucified (which is surprising), then we might doubt the story. OTOH, if Author X tell us he saw someone surviving being crucified, then his word has a lot more weight (in this particular instance, Josephus' word - he's the one who directly witnessed a crucified man surviving the ordreal).

And finally, if the claim is really far out there - something that simply doesn't seem to fit in any way, form or shape our knowledge of how the world work (read: "And Jesus walked on water/was resurected/etc"), then we need extraordinary evidence for it, which historical hearsay is not.

---------------------

As for your study of the assassination of Lincoln - it would not be discounted. It would never even be invoked as *evidence* of the event in the first place - because we have far more tangible evidence of this assassination (official records, etc). Its value would be established by comparing it with the evidence available to us, to check if you got your facts right.

And therein lies the problem with the gospels (and most ancient "histories") : if we take them as historical studies of the evidence, then there's *NO* evidence whatsoever for us to compare them to. We have to treat them as evidence (and examine it in that light, ie how much of it is the author's own observations, how much of it is hearsay, what is hearsay, etc) because there's no way for us to know how well or how badly the author treated the evidence available to him (ie, did he get the witness out of the women directly? Did he get the information from rumors floating about the christian community? Did he...), so we cannot criticize the historical work proper.

There is a further point if you wish to take a legalistic point of view:

Christ explicitly makes the claim that he is the Way, the only means by which humanity and god can achieve true contact. Accepting the resurrection as portrayed through the Christian faith means accepting at least that Jesus was a divine being, even if the detail of his message may have been distorted by his followers. Thus, I would contend that to accept the resurrection but deny the core of the Christian message is absurd. And the core of this message is exclusivity.

There are a variety of religions around the world, some for which claim equal exclusivity and some of which are compatible with a multi-faith environment.

Many of those religions have equal evidence of their applicability - that is to say religious texts written at or close to the time of the events reported which can be cross-correlated in some non-religious ways with independent documents or archeaological evidence, but which record extraordinary events for which there is no corroborative evidence.

For the resurrection to be true and the Christian gospel to be accurate it follows that these other testaments must be inaccurate, yet they have substantially the same level of evidence.

So, consider a court confronted with a variety of witness statements, all mutually contradictory and all promoting their own agenda. Many of the witness statements set out events that are extraordinary, that is not experienced in normal life nor admitting of a rational explanation.

Of course, it is possible that one of those witnesses could be telling the truth. But which one? Why select Christianity as opposed to any other option? And of course, an alternative option you have, as a member of the jury, is to conclude that they are all mistaken.

In Matthew 24:29, Jesus said: "...the stars will fall from the sky...".

Jesus must have lacked basic knowledge in astronomy.

Originally posted by cgannon64
Incorrect, you're mixing up year written with years after.

Jesus died around 33 AD, t hey were written about 60 AD to 90 AD. So, 30 to 60 years after his death.
The most used year by historians for Jesus' death is 29 AD. The three synoptic gospels were written around 60 AD. John's gospel in 90 AD.

Meaning that, while the original Apostles probably didn't write them, their disciples did.
And, if the theory that the synoptics all came from an original source is true, then this original source was probably written even earlier, around 40-60. Probably correct. Jesus's twelve disciples might very well all have been unable to read or write. Matthew's gospel shows some mistakes about Jewish traditions, meaning that it probably was not written by a Jew (thus not by Matthew himself).
There is also a theory that Mark's gospel was written in Rome.

Things you can assume are true in the New Testament:

Jesus worked miracles, or at least things people thought were miracles. Either way he did stuff that amazed some people. Some things to remember: Josephus, the Jewish historian, called him a "wonder-worker" and the Pharisees did not deny that Jesus worked miracles (which you think they would, considering they denied everything else he said) they just credited them to the power of the devil.
Jesus was crucified.
Jesus' body disappeared.

What a ridiculous nonsense. I have produced a linke here before, about Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries" link (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/anthony.campbell1/bookreviews/r/freke-gandy.html)

The following miracles were already a complete story (and thus a blueprint for the gospels), 50 years before Jesus was born. It is about Dionysos:

-a virgin mother
-driving out demons
-healing sick people
-turning water into wine
-dying for our sins
-being crucified
-having 12 disciples
-rising from death on the 3rd day.
-having 3 females visitors, finding an empty tomb
-birth being predicted by a star
-born on 25th of december or 6th of january
-dying and rising around easter
-several other similarities

This clearly proves (from a historical point of view, not from a religious point of view), that Jesus' miracles were copied, when the synoptic gospels (or their source) were created.

The historical accuracy of the gospels is very low. Do not delude yourselfs. Even the most respected Christian historians will agree that the gospels are not historical documents, but religious proclamations, shaped as historical documents.

Another thing we should realise, is that the gospels were partly inspirated by Paul's epistals (and not the other way around).


Jesus existed.
Jesus was crucified.
Jesus' body disappeared.

Many many Jews were crucified. The Roman governor PP was a very cruel man who crucified Jews, when the had the tiniest possible smell of jeapardising the Roman occupation of Judea.
That is something we can safely assume to be true!

The chances for one of those Jews being called Yeshua are 90%.....
The story of the disapearance of his body was simply copied from another source (as indicated above) .

How old is the earliest surviving document of the gospels?

Originally posted by Iggy
How old is the earliest surviving document of the gospels?

Mark's gospel was written between 55 - 60 AD.

Moved to History.

Originally posted by Giotto
Matthew, the gospel writer, says the first people to hear of the resurrection were the two women. They were told of the event by an angel.
The angel told two women first because he wanted the news to spread faster.

One of the key moments in CS Lewis' conversion to Christianity was a conversation he had with a collegue from the History department. Like Lewis at that time, the History Prof was atheist, and viewed the Bible as subversive and dangerous (which would cause him to fit in well around here). Discussing the "Myth of the Christ" the historian said in reference to the ressurection, "The rum thing about this dead God rising, is that it appears to have actually happened."

This concession against interest was central to Lewis looking at the Gospel accounts seriously, rather than as mythology, which led him to his personal conviction that it was all basically true, and hence compelling.

I do not have access to the things that an Oxford Professor of History would, but it seems sufficient that the possible conflicts had been studied in detail. Some points
1) The crucifixion is not in the "record" by name, but the likelihood is that only someone who was actually crucified would be portrayed as such because of the stigma surrounding executions
2) There is substantial documentary evidence that the body was missing, most of it nonBiblical.
3) The argument that the body was stolen was advanced early and advanced by the Jews.
4) This indicates that there was little or no dispute about the missing body during the 1st century
5) The tomb was guarded. This is not a minor point. The penalty for failing in Guard duty was usually flogging, and often death, and the guards themselves were an elite unit.
6) The stone is also not a trival obstacle. The tomb would have been underground, and the stone would be directly over the mouth. Opening a tomb was a major, excuse the expression, undertaking
7) While the Jews claimed the body was stolen, the disciple never had any doubt as to their story. This is contrary to the norm of fishing to find a story that sells.
8) The idea that he was never dead has NO validity. He was examined by an expert prior to burial, standard Roman practice, plus the blood/water separation would stand in court today. The spear thrust into the heart is also convincing evidence of death.

The existance of a markedly parallel model from a close and earlier date is interesting, but it is easy to read too much into the finding. First it is not established that there is any direct relation between them. Second, even if the earlier tradition is formative, there remains the question of how much so, and whether it is influential at the time, after the fact, both or neither. It has often been said that nothing is ever really new, only newly presented.

Finally, the dating of the books of the NT is problematic, particulary because of the absense of the destruction of Jerusalem, in AD57 IIRC. Many of the books atttributed to Paul are clearly written by one person, with some editorial variance, consistent with dictatted letters. The very short letter of Philemon is particularly interesting because of the unique nature of the letter, and the fact that it was preserved. There are interesting historical reasons for the latter, which help confirm to most that the author is as the letter claims. The writer of the major books Romans, Ephesians, Galations, 1 Corinthians is very likely the same person, ie Paul. This would place the latest letters about 30 years after the death of Jesus.

The Gospels are a different matter. It seems clear that there were several competing records floating around. The Q document, or early Mark Gospel, may have served as a broad blueprint the synoptic Gospels, Matthew Mark and Luke. It seems clear that the three were written or corrected in an attempt to clarify what was accurate from what was embellishment. Luke in particular was not a disciple, but had access to Paul who was present for at least part of the period and also the surviving 11 on at least 2 occasions. His style is careful and detailed, so it seems clear that he did research and kept careful notes prior to rendering his version. By any standard except word count he is a giant among the historians of antiquity, accurate, detailed, precise.

The Gospel of John is the one most clearly written by an eyewitness. The question is when? In some ways it has the most highly developed theology, which argues a later date, which also concurs with the tradition that he lived to be very old. On the other hand, why is there no reference to the fall of the Temple, had it happened? More than any of the other Gospels, John focuses on the last 7 days, devoting over 1/2 the word count. In some ways the author's shyness--he never calls himself by name--lends credibility to the tribute of the book to John the brother of James, one of the 12 and the inner three.

J

Originally posted by onejayhawk

2) There is substantial documentary evidence that the body was missing, most of it nonBiblical. Never seen any....
3) The argument that the body was stolen was advanced early and advanced by the Jews.So?
4) This indicates that there was little or no dispute about the missing body during the 1st centuryIt indicates nothing. Dont' delude yourself.
5) The tomb was guarded. This is not a minor point. The penalty for failing in Guard duty was usually flogging, and often death, and the guards themselves were an elite unit.Where does this info come from? Why would the Romans even care an inch about guarding a dead man? If there was a riot somewhere else in Yerushalaim, any decent Roman officer would send his elite troops there. And around 30 AD, Judea was a nasty rebelling region! That is something that can be proven. The Rebellion ended with burning od the city in 72 AD
6) The stone is also not a trival obstacle. The tomb would have been underground, and the stone would be directly over the mouth. Opening a tomb was a major, excuse the expression, undertakingThe whole point simply goes besides the fact that we do not hav any evidence whatsoever that Yeshua was indeed buried in an underground tomb.....
7) While the Jews claimed the body was stolen, the disciple never had any doubt as to their story. This is contrary to the norm of fishing to find a story that sells. 'The Jews'??? Who are 'the Jews'?
8) The idea that he was never dead has NO validity. He was examined by an expert prior to burial, standard Roman practice, plus the blood/water separation would stand in court today. The spear thrust into the heart is also convincing evidence of death. There is no evidence of any examination! There is no evidence of a spear thrust! Who was this expert? Where are his reports?


The whole story was first written down 30 years after the whole thing would have happened! I have already given strong pieces of evidence that the whole story about crucifiction, and resurrecting after 3 days around easter was simply copied from another story, dating 50BC. Just like the bunch of miracles described in the gospels.


It is an almost clear fact that the Jesus from the gospels, was an afterwards constructed hero. Even many Christian historians will back that up.

The New Testament is a more reliable document than any other document that has been passed down from that time. Do you consider the story of Caesar's assassination to be true? Why? What about the conquests of Alexander the Great? Interesting to note that the first biography of Alexander was written over two centuries after his death, and yet every modern historian takes it as factual.

Originally posted by Daniel Khan
The New Testament is a more reliable document than any other document that has been passed down from that time. Do you consider the story of Caesar's assassination to be true? Why? What about the conquests of Alexander the Great? Interesting to note that the first biography of Alexander was written over two centuries after his death, and yet every modern historian takes it as factual.

Though you have fair point, there is one thing you seem to forget:

The gospels are not historical documents, but religious proclamations, shaped as historical documents.

Therefor, the reliability of the gospels shoudl be questioned.

As for the epistals:

I think Paul was working for the Romans. He simply faked his believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

That is, imho, a more plausible explination than the one that a billion people 'believe'in ........

"1) The crucifixion is not in the "record" by name, but the likelihood is that only someone who was actually crucified would be portrayed as such because of the stigma surrounding executions"

Granted. That he was executed (note : or at least appeared to die), most likely by crucifixion, is something we can accept.

"2) There is substantial documentary evidence that the body was missing, most of it nonBiblical. "

False. The only evidence of the missing body is found in the work of early christians - everything else that people have totted out as evidence (such as that famous edict stone) is merely evidence that there were graverobbers in Jesus' time. Which, you will forgive me for saying, isn't exactly a big discovery.

"3) The argument that the body was stolen was advanced early and advanced by the Jews."

Who would have the occasion to check the proof in ways we can't today.

"4) This indicates that there was little or no dispute about the missing body during the 1st century"

It indicates no such thing. What indication we have is that there is no empty tomb story until the gospels of Mark, 30 years after the fact. (Paul talked about a resurection, but in terms that could easily mean a SPIRITUAL resurection, ie no return of the body). Of course if the story surfaced, say, in Rome twenty years after the alleged death of Jesus (Ie, where it would have lead to Mark writing it, since he most likely wroth around Rome around 60 AD), checking the facts by the time the story got back to Jesusalem would have been *very* hard.

"5) The tomb was guarded. This is not a minor point. The penalty for failing in Guard duty was usually flogging, and often death, and the guards themselves were an elite unit."

Not so. *IF* they were legionaries, the penalty was to be set by a jury of the legionaries' fellow legionaries, who would have been very unlikely to visit death upon their fellow roman citizens because some force clearly able to overwhelm them (spiritual, or physical) had stolen the body of this or that dead rebel member of a conquered people. After all, they didn't abandon their post or anything, and could have testified so (with no one being able to testify against them).

That is, of course, assuming the bible is right about these soldiers being legionaries, which is extremely doubtful given roman practice. But perhaps I should ask the expert to come drop some of his knowledge on the matter here?

"6) The stone is also not a trival obstacle. The tomb would have been underground, and the stone would be directly over the mouth. Opening a tomb was a major, excuse the expression, undertaking"

Yet the stone would be lightweight enough that a single old man was able to roll it in place. Which fits with what we know of cave-blocking stones in these days, they were usually made of limestone, and rarely more than 1 ton in place, meaning something that can rather easily be tipped out of the way by a single man. Not lifted, but pushed? Sure.

"7) While the Jews claimed the body was stolen, the disciple never had any doubt as to their story. This is contrary to the norm of fishing to find a story that sells."

What evidence do we have they never had any doubt while no text written before thirty years past Jesus' death even mention the empty tomb itself?

"8) The idea that he was never dead has NO validity. He was examined by an expert prior to burial, standard Roman practice, plus the blood/water separation would stand in court today. The spear thrust into the heart is also convincing evidence of death."

He was examined by a roman soldier prior to his death, in an age were something has simple as *CHECKING FOR PULSE* wasn't common practice outside the healers of the elite. In addition, a number of plants and drugs could be used to simulate death in such ways that a then-healer (let alone a soldier) would be fooled, and - this is an important part - JESUS "DIED" IMMEDIATELY AFTER A SPONGE LOADED FULL OF LIQUID WAS PUT TO HIS FACE. Usually this sponge served to bring the prisonner back to consciousness, so the end result being exactly the reverse is *somewhat* surprising.

It would be impossible for any human being to survive a cruxifixion. Any doctor could tell you that. There is no record of anybody surviving more than a few minutes up there, much less several hours.

There is no record of anybody surviving more than a few minutes up there, much less several hours.

I'm not sure about that. Crucifixion kills (eventually) by asphyxiation, not blood loss. Death finally comes when the condemned is unable to lift himself up and breathe. Victims weren't held up by the nails in wrists and ankles alone-- these wouldn't support the weight of the body-- but by standing on a small 'ledge' on the cross. With this the victim could continue breathing for hours: there (I believe, though there is a chance you're right) are records of crucifixitions lasting for the better part of a day. These were usually stopped when soldiers removed the ledges: then the victim couldn't lift his chest to breathe, and would die soon. The crucifixion of Jesus, if we can believe the New Testament, was a relatively short one, lasting only six hours.

Originally posted by Daniel Khan
It would be impossible for any human being to survive a cruxifixion. Any doctor could tell you that. There is no record of anybody surviving more than a few minutes up there, much less several hours.

pff, any doctor can tell you it IS possible.....

Not only it would most likely be physically possible, but as a matter of fact we have a direct testimony that it happened at least once - Josephus recorded personally observing just such a survival.

Josephus as in, probably the most famous "historian" of the era - or even more to the point, Josephus as in just about the only independant source we have confirming the existence of Jesus for those of you who might not remember who he is.

Originally posted by Daniel Khan
The New Testament is a more reliable document than any other document that has been passed down from that time. Do you consider the story of Caesar's assassination to be true? Why?

There are several copies of documents OF THAT TIME. These copies do NOT contradict themselves. These copies do NTO show signs of having been altered to fit an ultimate goal.


See the difference?


oh, the BIG one: the reports of Caesars assassination do not include any weird stuff like miracles!

Originally posted by carlosMM
There are several copies of documents OF THAT TIME. These copies do NOT contradict themselves. These copies do NTO show signs of having been altered to fit an ultimate goal.

There are more copies of the New Testament texts than all other ancient texts combined. How does the NT ever contradict itself? How can you tell if it's been altered? :confused:

oh, the BIG one: the reports of Caesars assassination do not include any weird stuff like miracles!

Other than the sighting of the comet and the soothsayer's "Beware the Ides of March" comment, that is.

1 - We can tell because we have different early copies of some part (ie, early copies of Mark without the last few bits for example)

2 - The number of copies of a text we have is patentedly irrelevant. It just means more people wanted it copied. I'm pretty sure we could find more copies of the Lord of the Rings today than of most historical books ; doesn't change anything to which is fact and which is fiction.

As for weird stuff, I'm *pretty* sure what I've read is that Shakespeare came up with the Ides of March. As for a comet passing by, frankly, you're stretching it calling that one "weird stuff like miracle".

Finally, go back and re-read my extraordinary claim point. If you are going to claim resurection, you need a lot more evidence than if you are going to claim someone was murdered. One of them is an extraordinary claim - something that we have never observed in modern scientifical history. The other is a relatively ordinary claim - murder is something we (sadly) have to deal with everyday.

Originally posted by Daniel Khan
There are more copies of the New Testament texts than all other ancient texts combined. How does the NT ever contradict itself? How can you tell if it's been altered? :confused:
hehe, the copies of the NT written AT THE TIME OF JESUS DEATH - where are they?

no, there are NO contemporary reports....

and contradictions - read all the man posts by stapel detailing them. He has posted over and over on the differences between the 4 'reports'


Other than the sighting of the comet and the soothsayer's "Beware the Ides of March" comment, that is.

which all is NOT included in the contemporary reports, but added later....

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
1 - We can tell because we have different early copies of some part (ie, early copies of Mark without the last few bits for example)

2 - The number of copies of a text we have is patentedly irrelevant. It just means more people wanted it copied. I'm pretty sure we could find more copies of the Lord of the Rings today than of most historical books ; doesn't change anything to which is fact and which is fiction.

As for weird stuff, I'm *pretty* sure what I've read is that Shakespeare came up with the Ides of March. As for a comet passing by, frankly, you're stretching it calling that one "weird stuff like miracle".

Finally, go back and re-read my extraordinary claim point. If you are going to claim resurection, you need a lot more evidence than if you are going to claim someone was murdered. One of them is an extraordinary claim - something that we have never observed in modern scientifical history. The other is a relatively ordinary claim - murder is something we (sadly) have to deal with everyday.

hehe, I should have read this post before I replied. :goodjob:

@ Onejayhawk and others:

Saul is a Roman. He is a Christian-chaser. He most likely used to work as a tents-maker for the Roman army. Then he starts to write structural pro-roman epistals.

From a historical perspective, that is highly suspicious!

How do you explain the structural pro-Roman carachteristics of Paul's epistals?

Originally posted by Stapel
@ Onejayhawk and others:

Saul is a Roman. He is a Christian-chaser. He most likely used to work as a tents-maker for the Roman army. Then he starts to write structural pro-roman epistals.

From a historical perspective, that is highly suspicious!

How do you explain the structural pro-Roman carachteristics of Paul's epistals?

And how do you explain the fact that Paul was beheaded by the Romans? I even visited the cell he stayed before the execution, the same where Peter stayed, and they were executed on the same day.
But since Paul was a roman citizen, he got the "light" execution. Peter was crucified upside down. And there are contemporary reports from the excutions

Originally posted by luiz
And how do you explain the fact that Paul was beheaded by the Romans? I even visited the cell he stayed before the execution, the same where Peter stayed, and they were executed on the same day.
But since Paul was a roman citizen, he got the "light" execution. Peter was crucified upside down. And there are contemporary reports from the excutions

Luiz,

You know that these stories are highly inaccurate and most likely made up later.....

Have you ever noticed that Paul was protected by the Romans? And when he writes letters from his supposed prison (or was it from his retirement villa in a nice neighbourhood in Rome), he sais hi to half of the Roman establishment, including the moenycollectors, who, in the Roamn system usually combined their jobs with secret service duties!

A bit suspicious me thinks.

Anything, as in anything, Paul wrote down, was pro-Roman. Read his epistals, and conclude for yourself.


Imagine:
An American soldier called Jim, in Iraq claims to be converted to the Islam today. Then he starts writing letters to the people in Bagdad and Basra and Falluja and tells them there is a new Islam, with a new born Messiah he has never met himslef, except in a dream, and tells them the Iraqis should pay taxes to the Americans, to cover their costs to occupy Iraq..........

Imagine: Some of Iraqis, after years of oppression, think this guy has a point. But most of the Iraqis want him dead. The Americans decide to save Jim, who is called Pim now, and ship him to Washington, were it appears that he knows many people of the CIA, from earlier days.
Pim writes a few more letters and then he disappears.

Then, a friend of Pim, a doctor, who accompanied Pim during his travels through Iraq, starts telling about this dream Jim/Pim had. He writes a gospelabout the ne Messiah and starts writing down this guy is a great-great Grandson of a fromer KIng of Iraq, so more people will believe it.
He also copies a dozen or two miracles from an ancient Greek story he once read somewhere, including a story around resurrection around easter time.

Pim is a real hero!
And so is another friend of the doctor, when he travels to Washington.
Together they give masterclasses in Washington, about this new religion they just created.

Within 200 years, Washington adopts the new religion as its state religion.


What I just typed down, is a short version of the New Testament in a present day situation. I am very sorry, but I am not the one being cynical here. It was Saul of Tarsus who was being cynical. The NT is one of the blackest, cynical pieces of litearture in the wolrd

stapel: a great idea, putting the NT into modern context! This opens an entirely new perspective!

Originally posted by Stapel
Luiz,

You know that these stories are highly inaccurate and most likely made up later.....

Have you ever noticed that Paul was protected by the Romans? And when he writes letters from his supposed prison (or was it from his retirement villa in a nice neighbourhood in Rome), he sais hi to half of the Roman establishment, including the moenycollectors, who, in the Roamn system usually combined their jobs with secret service duties!

A bit suspicious me thinks.

Anything, as in anything, Paul wrote down, was pro-Roman. Read his epistals, and conclude for yourself.


Imagine:
An American soldier called Jim, in Iraq claims to be converted to the Islam today. Then he starts writing letters to the people in Bagdad and Basra and Falluja and tells them there is a new Islam, with a new born Messiah he has never met himslef, except in a dream, and tells them the Iraqis should pay taxes to the Americans, to cover their costs to occupy Iraq..........

Imagine: Some of Iraqis, after years of oppression, think this guy has a point. But most of the Iraqis want him dead. The Americans decide to save Jim, who is called Pim now, and ship him to Washington, were it appears that he knows many people of the CIA, from earlier days.
Pim writes a few more letters and then he disappears.

Then, a friend of Pim, a doctor, who accompanied Pim during his travels through Iraq, starts telling about this dream Jim/Pim had. He writes a gospelabout the ne Messiah and starts writing down this guy is a great-great Grandson of a fromer KIng of Iraq, so more people will believe it.
He also copies a dozen or two miracles from an ancient Greek story he once read somewhere, including a story around resurrection around easter time.

Pim is a real hero!
And so is another friend of the doctor, when he travels to Washington.
Together they give masterclasses in Washington, about this new religion they just created.

Within 200 years, Washington adopts the new religion as its state religion.


What I just typed down, is a short version of the New Testament in a present day situation. I am very sorry, but I am not the one being cynical here. It was Saul of Tarsus who was being cynical. The NT is one of the blackest, cynical pieces of litearture in the wolrd

The reason why Paul writings can seem pro-roman to some is that as a roman citizen, Paul was obviously influenced by roman ideals.

However, I'll have to refute your theory abou it beign made up later. The execution of Paul and Peter were in the early editions of the New Testment, that was written shortly after they died. There is no time lapse between the fact and the writing in this case. Overwhelming evidence support the fact that Paul and Peter were killed in the same day,and we know even the location of the cell they stayed.

And considering that Paul was a roman spy and managed to make christianity pro-roman, then why would the romans persecute christians for centuries after "mission accomplished"?

More than one possible answer.

First off is that Roman political power shifted. The "emperors" weren't always of the same mind. They were often in fact from rival factions - and some of these factions were under christian influence (an in fact there is some evidence that the Christians themselves wielded more political clout than we'd be tempted to believe through conversion of high ranking citizens - I believe there's a letter from one of the martyrs out there asking his fellow christians not to attempt to prevent his martyrdom, therefore implying they could in fact prevent his death). Obviously other factions would go for the persecution approach.

SIDE NOTE : the persecutions weren't continuous. Certainly there was an edict standing against Christianty, but that was not persecution insofar as it was as often ignored as applied, and aside from a handful of empires-wide persecutions (religious authorities claim 10 ; secular researchers record a much lower 3), most of the so-called persecutions were very local - a city, perhaps the surrounding countryside, and that was that.

This later category, btw, includes Nero and Rome - and Nero made just about every group in roman society suffer. The Christians may have been useful scapegoats, or may really have been to blame for the fire (there is some suspicion of that among historians), but the point of the matter was that the Christians are hardly unique in having been victims of Nero.

As for how much we "know" about Paul and co - I wouldn't put any money on the cell story being true. Certainly they may have been executed, but that we would know the location of their cell? Whatever training I do have as an historian seems to stop dead and scream "SCAM!" over that kind of claim - it's exactly the kind of claims the middle-ages were good at fabricating (along with relics).

Re Paul being a Roman citizen, that too is extremely doubtful. Being a Roman citizen in the old days required (as far as I'm told - Xen, feel free to correct me if you're around) that you pay hoomage and honor the matching gods (ie, Romans). Being a Jew obviously required that you pay hommage to God alone. Paul openly claimed to be both.

Problem? Sure is.

well, I'll add a few cents on the facts, but cant really comment on the thread itself, as basicaly, its completely affirmed fro me that monotheism has no validity to it what so ever, despite some of its its teachings in ethics and morals being on what would be considered the "right track"

anyway, I'll quote a few points, and add in my little comment

Other than the sighting of the comet and the soothsayer's "Beware the Ides of March" comment, that is. this never happend. it was invented to be part of a play (that said, i thought the play was nice :))

Have you ever noticed that Paul was protected by the Romans? And when he writes letters from his supposed prison (or was it from his retirement villa in a nice neighbourhood in Rome), he sais hi to half of the Roman establishment, including the moenycollectors, who, in the Roamn system usually combined their jobs with secret service duties! (and a note on the theory that paul was a Roman agent)

this is actually suspicious to me for a different reason- in the few provinces like Judea, the tax collectors woud have been despised, as one of the bad policies left over from the era of the Republic (not that switchig to the empire as it was was necissarilly a good thing, ideally, it would have been a combination of the republic as it was historically, and the empire as it was historically, till the people could participate directlly, but thats a different topic completely), any way, like I was saying, the tax collectors were hated, because in the Roman system of governemt, there was no governement pay for the position- they took a percentage of the taxs they got- now gegerally speaking, this dosent result in a problem in most provinces- as it would piss someon big off completley- but Judea is the ass end of nowhere for any Roman official, and they would be looking to make it pay off anyway they could- this is basically one of the big instegator in the 3 "Jewish Revolts" (though not all people of the jewish religion revolted, in fact Rome is the largest and oldest continueing center of Judaism out of the middle east) but again off track- anyway, it suspcious- the Romans were not naive as to the use of secret agents for poltical means, and while I am "skepticle" to say the least of paul everof having been int he employ of the Roman big whigs, it would be easy to see how a few provincial magistrates looking to gain more support- or at leas tmore control- over the local opulation would seek to influence a weird cult in the middle of nowhere int he center of thier province, the ass end of nowhere for them.

5) The tomb was guarded. This is not a minor point. The penalty for failing in Guard duty was usually flogging, and often death, and the guards themselves were an elite unit.

wrong. theres first the fact that he was crusified As an EMEMY of the Roman state- there would have been no guards, hes just lucky that the Romans considered it an abombination the highes order to disfigure and mutilate the slains bodies (under general circumstances at least)

there is also the fact, that unless your talking about the emperor himself, the Legionarries gaurdign anything would not have been elite- infact, chances are, ANY guards except for the most important people in the province would have been made up of auxilliaries- recrutied from the local -jewish- population- though even more likelly was that considerieng the situation, even the auxilliaries were from another, distant region of the empire

Re Paul being a Roman citizen, that too is extremely doubtful. Being a Roman citizen in the old days required (as far as I'm told - Xen, feel free to correct me if you're around) that you pay hoomage and honor the matching gods (ie, Romans). Being a Jew obviously required that you pay hommage to God alone. Paul openly claimed to be both. - no religiona played no part on if one could be a Roman citizen or not, but as soem official duties were considered preistlyl rites as well, it was required that you be a Roman polytheist if you were to go the senatorial rout of being in government.

And considering that Paul was a roman spy and managed to make christianity pro-roman, then why would the romans persecute christians for centuries after "mission accomplished"?[/b]

because there wa sno mission to begin with, and if Paul was a roman agent, he was not working with an Imperial mandate, but with one issued by the local officials- one that if the empror had found out about, could have gotten said officials in alot of trouble if the empror felt like pursuing the matter- to that, it seemed most emperors couldnt care less about christianity, it was just some weird little religion similer to judaism, but not judaism, and therefore not accounted the speciealty anti-discrimination rights that had been awarded to judaism somtime previous.

I'm sure there is other stuff in the thread I could comemnt about, but i'm doing this asa favor to a friend, not because i want to, though I'll contue to check up ont he thread, and comment when somthing needs to be commented upon.

The rise of Christianity was a long slow process. It took 200 years to decide what books to include in the New Testament and 600 years to work out a theology. I’m not so sure Truth had anything to do with it. Jesus and the church are separated by several hundred years and many, many human decisions.

29 AD Crucifixion
30 –90 AD
During these 60 years the four gospels and Acts were written, the Apostles traveled and founded churches; Paul and others wrote letters to bolster the faithful. By the time John wrote his 2 books and died about 90 AD, most likely all other people who had significant actual contact with Jesus had died too. The eyewitnesses were gone. Nero’s brief persecution of a few Christians in Rome in 64 AD probably ended the life of Peter and Paul.
90 – 249 AD the churches were pretty much left to their own devices.
Local churches collected and choose there own material for study. One might focus on Mark another on Matthew and Acts, and a third might include a letter from Paul. There was no uniformity or standardization. Because Jesus stories were popular and so many were written in this time (and up through 200 AD) early church fathers began to screen them and make decisions on which ones should/could be used in church. They tried to base their choices on the author. If is was written by someone who actually knew Jesus, that was best. Second best was if the author knew or wrote for, one of the Apostles. This process began about 100 AD and all of the original players were dead. Over the next 200 years they divided the contenders into three basic groups: the official cannon (New Testament), the Apocryphal books, and those left out completely.

The first coherent Christian theology wasn’t written down until after 200 AD when Origen of Alexandria wrote On First Principles in the early 3rd Century. 200 years after Jesus died. In his day, Origen was one of the leading Christian scholars. His writings were accepted by the Church as doctrine. His theology is nothing like that of modern Christianity. In fact, Origen’s writings were declared heretical 400 years later.

Here is a link to his life and writings:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/origen.htm

193-211 AD Emperor Septimus Servus persecuted Christians

249 – 313 AD When Trajan Decius and his successors tried to turn back the clock and return Rome to the old values of the early Empire, Christianity was over 200 years old and had grown enough to be noticed and considered a threat to the reactionary rule of Trajan. Persecutions continued for almost 20 years.

249-268 AD Christian persecuted under Trajan Decius, Valerian & Gallienus

After a short break:
284-305 The worst of the persecutions. Diocletian resumed the persecutions and took them to a new level that provoked a backlash of sympathy for Christians. At his death and the rise of Constantine, things changed.
313 D Constantine issues the Edict of Milan giving Christians the right to worship. He appoints Christians to government posts and may have converted on his deathbed in 337. He presided over the Council of Nicea in 325 where Christian leaders decided on the nature of the Trinity.

Originally posted by luiz
However, I'll have to refute your theory abou it beign made up later. The execution of Paul and Peter were in the early editions of the New Testment, that was written shortly after they died. There is no time lapse between the fact and the writing in this case. Overwhelming evidence support the fact that Paul and Peter were killed in the same day,and we know even the location of the cell they stayed. Luiz, there is no overwhelming evidence. Historians (scientists) do not agree with you. It simply fits in very well in toyr religious believes. And that's it I Guess.

And considering that Paul was a roman spy and managed to make christianity pro-roman, then why would the romans persecute christians for centuries after "mission accomplished"? He didn't want to make christianity pro-Roan. He wanted to make the nasty rebelling people in Judea pro-Roman.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Re Paul being a Roman citizen, that too is extremely doubtful. Being a Roman citizen in the old days required (as far as I'm told - Xen, feel free to correct me if you're around) that you pay hoomage and honor the matching gods (ie, Romans). Being a Jew obviously required that you pay hommage to God alone. Paul openly claimed to be both.

Problem? Sure is.

I would bet my money on Paul not being a Jew.....

Another important evidence against the claim that Paul worked fror Rome:
-Paul was strongly agaist slavery, while the roman economy was heavilly slave-based. In his most famous letters Paul spoke vehemently against slavery, something that the romans would never approve. In fact this might have played a role in why he got arrested.

Originally posted by luiz
Another important evidence against the claim that Paul worked fror Rome:
-Paul was strongly agaist slavery, while the roman economy was heavilly slave-based. In his most famous letters Paul spoke vehemently against slavery, something that the romans would never approve. In fact this might have played a role in why he got arrested.

sigh....

Just try to imagine Paul didn't mean one single thing he wrote down! That's what spies do!

Originally posted by luiz
Another important evidence against the claim that Paul worked fror Rome:
-Paul was strongly agaist slavery, while the roman economy was heavilly slave-based. In his most famous letters Paul spoke vehemently against slavery, something that the romans would never approve. In fact this might have played a role in why he got arrested.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

every philosopher in Rome in any time period you look at dispised slavery, and the gladitorial combats- just because your not pro slavery dosent mean your not a national in other senses of the word- even Marcus aurelius was known to have dislike dboth slavery, and the gladitorial games- nad he was a Roman EMPEROR- I fail to see how one comman mans dislikeing slavery makes him non-Roman.

That, and while Paul may have expressed dislike for slavery, he sure told the slaves to obey their masters and so forth.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
That, and while Paul may have expressed dislike for slavery, he sure told the slaves to obey their masters and so forth.

Yeah, that's simply cynical!